TRANSLATIONS OF ARAB TV-CHILLING

Max,

While I do not actively listen to Rush, the radio station that I wake up to plays short segments from Rush.

Every segment that I have heard has been at best a half-truth.
Some even tell only a VERY small portion of the whole story.

Rush is NOT a newsman, and his show is NOT a news show.
The Rush Limbaugh show is pure info-tainment.

Personally, I would not be surprised if Rush has more centrist views than expressed on his show.
He has found a marketing niche that he and his production company are able (and willing) to exploit.

As to the Middle East countries, at best 5 to 10% of the people have benefited from our oil habit.

Most of the rulers in the Middle East came to power with either the help of the oil companies, or the US.

We did nothing to help the people that these despots had to crush along the way.
As long as the rulers help us get the oil we want, everything is okay.

The bulk of world hatred for the US stems from our alliances of convenience.

If the US had not provided so much support and not looked the other way while Saddam was building his wealth and power base, we would never have had to fight a war to remove him from power.

Chas

I am not all that certain that people in the US are better off than they were 100 years ago.

Sure, there have been advancements in health care.

You can argue that the standard of living is better.

But:

Poverty

Family

Crime

Drug abuse

Common Sense

All of the above are worse in our "modern" society.

100 years ago;

You knew your neighbors, if not everyone on the street.

You did not have any worries about your children's safety when they went to school.

You knew where your food came from.

Most people earned an honest days pay for an honest days work.

Your family stayed together, and took care of each other for 3 or 4 generations.

The only drug abuse was the old guy with the still in the woods.

Those who could not take care of themselves were looked after by their neighbors.

Crime was so rare, most people did not lock their doors.

Moving to our automated fast paced lives has given rise to more leisure time with nothing to do but cause trouble.

I'm not suggesting that we give up the technological advances of the past 100 years.

I am suggesting that we have paid a high price for our modern life styles.

Chas

amoung other things,there was a rally in Dallas, although it's hard to find in the news, but here's a reference:

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=11655806&BRD=1426&PAG=461&dept_id=528208&rfi=6

Also, you will find that suicide is prohibited in the Quran chapter 4 vs 29 and so the airplane attacks were themselves against Islamic teaching.

On the other side you will see a lot of condemnations that also ask to be understood, these seem to piss off some people. Here's an example:

http://forumsnew.arabia.com:8000/WebX?14@222.b30ZaIfRd1v.0@.f0c2bf3!content=EN&page=2&sort=recent&view=expanded

There where tons of these after 911 by a lot of Muslim leaders worldwide and even locally I talked with people who condemned the act, but understood how it happened to some degree. Even Bush made it clear at the time we were NOT after the Muslims but Al Queda. Still the public was not clear. Kids were roughed up in my kids school for being Eastern and I understood something. That to stand up and condemn this as a Muslim was like waving a flag that said come find me in a time where Hate crimes rose something like 1600 percent according to the FBI if my memory serves correctly. I understood why they did not want to come forward or even to report this but just to keep it quiet was a reasonable response. You know how many black people tried to stand up and were put down or killed before Rosa Parks? A lot of them became unwilling to risk it- especially with a family. Don't make waves became the motto and victimizing the victim by blaming them for not standing up and it didn't help matters. This was a reasonable response in this situation.

Kind of like violence towards blacks (which, like 911 and Blacks or Muslims, I don't think was done by Whites or Christians per se, but by individual people)it took some people willing to risk harrasment, beatings and finally the deaths of some college students about 50 years ago to begin to end. My hat tips to Rosa Parks, but the bus thing really got popular support when peoples kids drove down to the south and were killed. This is going to take some Strong people to stand in and stop this nonsense about all Muslims being bad or it's going on for a long time victimizing each other IMO.

We need to not let the Muslim condemnation for these acts be drowned out by our unwillingness to hear the rest of their story and help them as our neighbors.

Call your local Mosque or ask a Muslim at work what they think. I bet they don't support this.

All in all, I am with you, I see a better America and even world in the future- one individual at a time :) Sometimes I am really overjoyed at how many good and wonderful people there are.

BTW- I did see both of the KKK and American Nazi's on National TV- If you watched the whole programs they speaking against it although there were some scary clips!

Arab-Israeli Conflict
I. Introduction

Arab-Israeli Conflict, conflict between Arabs and Jews in the Middle East over the land of historic Palestine. The conflict has led to several wars, beginning in 1948, among Arab nations, Palestinian refugees, and the state of Israel. Since 1979 several peace accords have been signed, addressing parts of the conflict.

II. Origins of Zionism and the Arab-Jewish Conflict

Throughout recorded history Palestine, located on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean Sea, was conquered many times by invaders. Among these were the Jewish people, who were subsequently expelled by the Romans in ad 135 but maintained the idea of regaining control of the area, which they considered home. In the 1890s Theodor Herzl, a Jewish journalist living in Austria, advocated reestablishing a Jewish state in Palestine. Herzl believed Zionism (the reuniting of Jewish people in Palestine) would match ?a people without a land with a land without a people.?

Palestine was already inhabited, however. The countryside was home to Arabs, most of them Muslims, while the larger towns contained both Arabs and Jews. Some of the Jews were long established there, while others were religious pilgrims from Europe who had come to live near the holy sites in Jerusalem and other cities. (Because the vast majority of Palestinians were Muslim Arabs, the term Palestinians now usually refers only to them, not to the Jews of Palestine. Most Palestinians are Muslims.) The land was ruled by the Ottoman Empire, but the Ottomans saw little of value in Palestine and neglected the area. Consequently, poverty, disease, and malnutrition were widespread. Nonetheless, the area served as a land corridor between Europe, Asia, and Africa and thus had strategic importance. It was also near the Suez Canal, which, when opened in Egypt in 1869, connected the Mediterranean Sea with the Red Sea. Palestine was therefore important to the British, who occupied Egypt in 1882 and depended on control of the canal for its fortunes.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries the Zionist movement gained strength in Europe, and large numbers of Jews immigrated to Palestine. The movement focused on self-reliance through agriculture, and many immigrants settled in the countryside. To do so, Jews had to buy land from local Arab holders of small tracts and from absentee Arab landlords of large areas. As a result, Jews and Arabs came into increasing contact; at times, Jewish purchases led to the displacement of Arab peasants from the land. Although the Ottoman government sought to slow the Zionist movement, Jews established a significant and expanded presence. Their success furthered the world debate about whether and how to establish a Jewish homeland, and it also created apprehension among Arabs.

III. The British Mandate

With the defeat of the Ottoman Empire in World War I (1914-1918), control of Palestine shifted from Muslim to Western powers. In return for their help in the war Britain had promised autonomy to both Zionists and Arabs. In a series of letters known as the Husein-McMahon Correspondence (between Husein ibn Ali of Mecca, who ruled Arabs in the Al Ḩij?z on the Arabian Peninsula, and Sir Henry McMahon, the British high commissioner in Egypt), the Arabs were promised the right to a new Arab nation in the lands of the former Ottoman Empire. The promise to the Jews came in the form of the Balfour Declaration (named for Lord Arthur Balfour, who transported the declaration). Issued by the British in 1917, it read:

His Majesty?s Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

The British were not troubled by potential contradictions between the Husein-McMahon Correspondence and the Balfour Declaration. They explained that they had not promised all the land of the Ottomans to either the Arabs or the Jews; they had merely promised parts of it to each group. The British did not elaborate on what would happen if both groups wanted the same land. Following the war, Britain sought and received a mandate from the League of Nations to rule Palestine and develop it according to the premise of the Balfour Declaration.

In 1922 the British separated Palestine into two territories: land east of the Jordan River became the Emirate of Transjordan (now Jordan); land to the west, from Lebanon and Syria in the north to Egypt in the south, remained Palestine. It was in this limited territory that Zionists clashed with Palestinian Arab nationalists. Both Jews and Arabs conducted terrorist attacks and intermittent, low-level warfare. Both groups resisted the British, particularly when a British policy was believed to benefit one side over the other. The struggle was reflected in political efforts to control land, institutions, and the economy.

Initially, Britain took several steps to aid the Arab side. For example, before World War II (1939-1945) the British did not allow large numbers of Jews to come to Palestine from Europe, where they were often persecuted. Nonetheless, Zionists gradually gained the upper hand through steady land purchases and slow but continual immigration. After World War II the world became aware of the murder of millions of Jews in the Holocaust, and opinion began to favor creating an independent Jewish state. Arabs in Palestine and elsewhere continued to resist the idea, but on November 29, 1947, the United Nations (UN) passed Resolution 181, which called for a partition of Palestine into separate Jewish and Arab states. The Jews accepted the resolution, but the Arabs opposed it. On May 14, 1948, the British mandate was terminated and at midnight the Jewish state of Israel declared its independence. The new state came under immediate attack from the Palestinian population and Arabs of the surrounding countries, including Egypt, Syria, and Lebanon.

IV. The Arab-Israeli War of 1948-1949

In the Arab-Israeli War of 1948-1949 Arab forces (including the armies of Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq as well as Palestinian guerrillas) had expected an easy victory over the small and isolated Jewish state, but despite heavy casualties Israel won. Israel also increased the land under its control far beyond what it had been given by the partition plan. The region just west of the Jordan River known as the West Bank came under the control of Transjordan (which was renamed Jordan in 1949). Egypt gained control of the Gaza Strip, a small region bordering the southern end of Israel?s Mediterranean coast. The demoralized Arab world was unwilling to accept the Israeli victory, and shortly after the war the Arabs began to regroup for more fighting. The war had also created a large population of Palestinian Arab refugees who fled Israel for camps maintained by the UN in neighboring Arab states. With the exception of Jordan, Arab countries generally refused to allow Palestinians to settle outside the camps or to be granted citizenship. As a result, the conflict between Israeli Jews and Palestinian Arabs continued to fester.

In the mid-1950s the Egyptian government began to support Palestinian guerrilla raids into Israel from the Gaza Strip. Egypt also refused to allow Israeli ships to use the Suez Canal and in 1951 blockaded the Strait of Tiran (Israel?s access to the Red Sea), which Israel regarded as an act of war. In June 1956 Egypt nationalized the Suez Canal, which had been jointly owned by Britain and France. In late October, Israel invaded the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula, defeating Egyptian forces there. Britain and France attacked Egypt a few days later. Although the fighting was brief and Israel eventually withdrew from the Sinai and Gaza, the conflict further exacerbated regional tensions.

V. The Six-Day War and the 1973 War

In 1967 Egypt, Syria, and Jordan massed their armies on Israel?s borders, and several Arab states called for war. Assuming the Arabs would attack, Israel struck first, in June 1967, and caught the Arabs by surprise. In the Six-Day War that followed, Israel demolished the armies and air forces of Egypt, Syria, and Jordan. It also gained control of the West Bank, the Sinai Peninsula and Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights region of southwestern Syria, and all of Jerusalem. A second wave of Palestinian refugees fled the fighting, worsening the problem created by the first exodus in 1948. With the armies of its enemies crushed, Israel felt it could wait for the Arab states to offer peace on terms it found comfortable. Many UN members were less confident that peace would follow and generally did not approve of Israel?s territorial gains. In late November the UN Security Council passed Resolution 242, which called for an exchange of territory for peace and for a resettling of the Palestinian refugees.

The Arab states continued to call for the destruction of Israel, while Israel for its part, refused to consider withdrawing from the territories it had occupied except in the context of a comprehensive peace plan. The Arabs increasingly threw their support behind the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), a political body that had been formed in 1964 to create a Palestinian state. Using terrorism, the PLO attacked Israel from their bases in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria; attacks by Palestinian Arabs came from within the Gaza Strip and West Bank as well. Israel?s position hardened, and little progress toward achieving peace was made in the late 1960s or early 1970s.

Egyptian president Anwar al-Sadat reconstructed the Egyptian army in the early 1970s. Syria also prepared for war and received weapons from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR). Israel, in turn, fortified its forward positions and was supplied with weapons by the United States. The Arabs attacked in October 1973 on Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the Jewish year, and caught Israel by surprise. Egypt and Syria pushed across the armistice lines established after the Six-Day War, which had kept Egyptian troops west of the Suez Canal and Syrian troops northeast of the Golan Heights. The Arab advances greatly restored Arab confidence. Israel, however, quickly recovered from the surprise and again pushed into Arab territory, surrounding or destroying the bulk of the Egyptian and Syrian forces. Nevertheless, Israel suffered greatly in the three-week war, especially from the injuries, deaths, and massive physical destruction of the war?s first two days. Moreover, Israel?s confidence was shaken, and the euphoria that followed the country?s victory in the Six-Day War was lost. In Israel and among most Western countries, the conflict came to be known as the Arab-Israeli War of 1973; Arabs call it the October War or Ramadan War. See Arab-Israeli War of 1973.

Following the war, U.S. secretary of state Henry Kissinger negotiated a series of disengagement agreements with the warring parties. Kissinger?s work (labeled shuttle diplomacy because he flew back and forth between the capitals of the warring countries, which refused to meet with one another) did little to change the prewar status quo, and the countries were technically still at war. Even so, the agreements did reverse the military buildup and achieved a relatively peaceful, if tense, stalemate.

VI. Camp David Accords

In the late 1970s Egypt?s military expenses caused it increasing economic hardship and social unrest, prompting Sadat to initiate negotiations with Israel in 1977. Sadat hoped to end the military buildup and regain the Sinai Peninsula. Israelis greeted Sadat?s visit to Jerusalem enthusiastically. United States president Jimmy Carter facilitated the negotiations between Sadat and Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin. The agreements came to be known as the Camp David Accords after the Maryland retreat where Carter hosted some of the negotiations. Under the peace treaty signed in March 1979, Egypt regained the Sinai Peninsula, which was partially demilitarized; foreign observers were placed in the peninsula to maintain the treaty?s provisions; and Israel and Egypt entered into normal diplomatic relations. For its part, Israel achieved peace with what had been its largest enemy at the cost of evacuating Israeli settlers from the Sinai and losing some investment in the area?s infrastructure, such as roads and housing. The Camp David Accords, however, did nothing for Syria and only advanced the Palestinian cause in the vaguest of terms. For these reasons, the Arab League expelled Egypt and the rest of the Arab world widely condemned the accords. In 1981 Sadat was assassinated by a group of Islamic fundamentalists within the Egyptian army. Egypt continued to maintain relations with Israel after Sadat?s death.

Following Camp David, Syria maintained its warlike posture and demanded the unconditional surrender of the Golan Heights, and the PLO continued its terrorist assaults on Israel. In 1982 Israel tried to wipe out the PLO by attacking its bases in Lebanon, which had been plunged into its own civil war in 1975. The assault on the PLO, which Israel called Operation Peace for Galilee, quickly escalated into ground battles in Lebanon and full-scale engagements between the Israeli and Syrian air forces. After a siege on Beirut the PLO leadership evacuated from Lebanon and relocated to Tunisia. Arabs were frustrated that Israel had occupied an Arab capital with little intervention from the rest of the world, and the Palestinians of the Israeli-occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip felt more isolated and abandoned than ever. Israel withdrew from most of Lebanon by 1985, though it continued to maintain a self-declared security zone inside Lebanon along the Israeli border.

VII. The Intifada and the Peace Process

In the late 1980s Palestinians began the intifada (uprising), a widespread campaign against the continuing Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The campaign combined elements of mass demonstrations, civil disobedience, riots, and terrorism. The intifada put the Israeli army on the defensive and forced them to devote significant resources to patrolling the West Bank and Gaza Strip as a police force. Many soldiers, including civilian reservists, were injured or killed, and the army in turn often used brutal tactics against Palestinians.

As a result of the intifada, pressure grew within Israel to broaden the peace process. The opportunity to do so was provided in 1991 by the Persian Gulf War. In this war, a multinational coalition of Western and Arab armies expelled Iraq from Kuwait, which Iraq had invaded in 1990. One of the coalition?s chief partners was the United States, a strong ally of Israel. Following the Western-Arab victory, the United States, along with its one-time enemy the USSR, pressed Arabs and Israelis to pursue peace in the Madrid Conference of 1991. For the first time, all sides sat together to discuss bilateral and region-wide peace talks. Although little progress was made, the conference paved the way for future agreements.

In 1993, while the official negotiating teams of the Palestinians and Israel were engaged in deadlocked negotiations in the United States, the two sides achieved a major breakthrough with the Oslo Accords, which were secretly negotiated in Oslo, Norway. The Oslo Accords and the resulting Declaration of Principles set the stage for a gradual transfer of power to the Palestinians. Further agreements in 1994 and 1995 gave the Palestinians autonomy over most aspects of life in the Gaza Strip and in urban areas of the West Bank through a new administrative body, the Palestinian National Authority (PNA). In the first elections for the PNA in 1996, PLO chairman Yasir Arafat was chosen as its president. Finally, the agreements stated that soon after these elections Israel would conduct further withdrawals from rural areas of the West Bank, after which talks addressing the final status of the Palestinian areas would begin.

Meanwhile, with the initial progress on the Palestinian issue, many Arab states felt freer to engage Israel openly and formally, though still with caution. On the heels of the 1993 agreements, Israel and Jordan took steps to negotiate a cooperative relationship. Despite opposition from other Arabs that Jordan?s King Hussein, like Egypt?s Sadat before him, was abandoning Palestinian interests in pursuit of a treaty with Israel, Hussein was undeterred. Jordan and Israel signed a peace agreement in 1994. By the mid-1990s Israel had also achieved diplomatic relations with Arab countries in North Africa and the Persian Gulf.

Despite these accomplishments towards peace, some terrorism and bloodshed continued. Palestinians conducted terrorist attacks on Israeli citizens, and on a number of occasions Israeli extremists responded in kind. Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by an Israeli student opposed to the peace process. Under Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the peace process stalled in 1997. While Netanyahu completed some elements of the peace agreements, such as removing Israeli troops from the West Bank town of Hebron, some of his policies, including building Israeli settlements in Arab East Jerusalem, angered Palestinians and earned rebukes from many nations.

In October 1998 Netanyahu and Arafat signed an accord by which Israel would withdraw from additional West Bank territory in return for Palestinian security measures against terrorist attacks on Israel. The Palestinians also agreed to remove articles that called for Israel's destruction in their national charter. In November Israel completed the first of three scheduled withdrawals, but froze the implementation of the accord the following month. Israel claimed that the Palestinians had not carried out their part of the accord and placed new conditions on further withdrawals. These developments again stalled the peace process and delayed negotiations on the final status of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. In 1999 elections Netanyahu was defeated by Labor Party leader Ehud Barak, who vowed to move the peace process forward.

Negotiations between Barak and Arafat were encouraging at first, but foundered over expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and the issue of how Israelis and Palestinians could share the city of Jerusalem. Despite the active participation of U.S. president Bill Clinton, the two sides were unable to come to agreement after marathon negotiating sessions held at Camp David, Maryland, in the summer of 2000. The failure generated bitter frustration among both Israelis and Palestinians. The volatile situation erupted in September with the outbreak of a second intifada (known as the Al Aqsa intifada, after the holy Al Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem), the resumption of widespread resistance to Israel in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, along with a string of devastating terrorist attacks in Israel proper. At the same time, the Israeli army increased its restrictions on the Palestinian population and stepped up its military tactics. During the second intifada, loss of life was heavy on both sides and peace negotiations broke down. In the absence of meaningful diplomacy, the situation was marked by increased use of force by the Israeli side and frequent suicide and ambush attacks by the Palestinian side. In a February 2001 election Likud party leader Ariel Sharon defeated Barak and became prime minister of Israel. In late 2001 Sharon asserted that Arafat was either unwilling or unable to represent the Palestinian people adequately and was therefore irrelevant to the peace process. Arafat, however, remained entrenched as the Palestinian leader. With mounting pressure from both Palestinian and Israeli extremist groups, the subsequent period was marked by pessimism and bitterness on both sides of the conflict.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contributed By:
Shaul Cohen, B.A., M.A., Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Department of Geography, University of Oregon. Author of The Politics of Planting: Israeli-Palestinian Competition for Control of Land in the Jerusalem Periphery.
"Arab-Israeli Conflict," Microsoft? Encarta? Online Encyclopedia 2004
http://encarta.msn.com ? 1997-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
? 1993-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All Rights Reserved.
Print

http://encarta.msn.com/text_761588322__1/Arab-Israeli_Conflict.html

Looks like the above mainly just describes recent problems but lets look back a little further

2000 BC
Jacob is born in Canaan (one of numerous families that inhabited the area known as Canaan), which later becomes Israel. Jacob's name is later changed to Israel. Jacobs Son's and decendants end up as slaves in Egypt due to NO FOOD

1446bc jews rebel from Egypt and take over Canaan
1406bc jews finish taking over the area of Canaan and rule as Israel until taken over by Assyria in 722

1300-1170bc while the jews fight amongst themselves, Greece, Anatolia, and tribes from the Balkans raid Egypt

1175bc the Peleset (Philistines) were involved in the second raid on Egypt, during the eighth year of Ramesses III. It was apparently after these raids that the Philistines settled down in the south-west of Israel (while Israel was beating themselves up). The Palestine area was named later and is named for the Philistine people who really are invaders of Egypt that never went back to their home of Cyprus or Crete (scholars argue over which)

1050BC Kingdom of Israel is established. Saul is Israel's first king. This wasn't the start of Israel just a change in government type from judges to kings.

722 Israel taken over by Assyria

722-present Israel taken over by XXXX (XXX=insert the popular empires of the time)

70AD The Roman Army, under Titus, destroys Jerusalem to suppress an uprising of Israel against occupation by rome. According to the historian Josephus, about 1.1 million Jews were killed. Others were taken as slaves.

135 AD The Romans, under Hadrian, kill an estimated 580,000 Jews to suppress the Bar Kochva uprising. The Romans ran a plow over Jerusalem to completely destroy the Holy City. The Romans ban the Jews from living in Jerusalem. Hadrian renamed the city Aelia Capitolina. Jews were allowed to travel once every year to a fragment of the destroyed temple, the western wall, which became known as the Wailing Wall. The Jews were essentially left with no state and turned toward their religion for identification and protection. This internalization provided for the survival of the jewish people.

638 Judea (notice how the romans and history writers have removed the name Israel from this entire time period?) was conquered by the Arabs. This effectively ended the period of Roman domination of Israel.

The Arabs are not Palestines, they are invaders.(fact not opinion) The Arabs constantly use the Palestine term to lay some claim on there "part" of Israel as some ancient home land to win over the support of the gullible. You want to meet a real Palestinian go to Gaza. And it won't be the guy with the turbin yelling holy war. It will be some Cyprus/Crete looking guy working at the car wash that doesn't give a crap about either the Arabs or the Jews

Life in Israel: Yossi Klein Halevi

Wednesday, July 10, noon ET

The news from Israel has become so depressingly familiar, it could almost be written in a template. A suicide bomber detonates him or herself in an Israeli town; the Israeli army moves into the West Bank; each side blames the other for the violence. The cycle repeats itself - again and again and again - with the only differences being the time, date and place of the next bombing. At the same time, Israelis also consider themselves to be under a different type of siege: Hated by their neighbors, criticized in the world press, and targeted by the U.N. for more hostile resolutions than all other countries combined (countries which include Liberia, Sudan, Sierra Leone, Iraq, among others). So how do Israelis cope? Chat with today's guest, Yossi Klein Halevi, about the mood inside Israel.

Yossi Klein Halevi is the Israel correspondent for the New Republic and a senior writer for the Jerusalem Report. He is the author of several books, including At the Entrance To the Gates Of Eden: A Jew's Search for Hope with Christians and Muslims in the Holy Land (HarperCollins), now out in paperback.

Missed the chat? Read the transcript below:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Danville, CA: Yossi - how do the people of Israel view the United States? and Bush? Thank you.

Yossi Klein Halevi: Israelis are among the most passionate pro-Americans you'll find anywhere. There is deep gratitude for America's courage and decency -- qualities that Israelis believe are largely responsible for America standing with Israel today. Bush, too, is very highly regarded, especially after his speech last week on the Middle East, where he essentially reversed the Oslo-era formula of "land for peace" to a new doctrine of "peace for land" -- that is, before Israel offers territory, the Palestinians must prove their readiness to live in peace with a Jewish state.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New York, NY: Why do you think Israel is losing the PR war in this onslaught?

Yossi Klein Halevi: I'm not sure we are, at least not among Americans, most of whom, I think, understand that Israel is on the front line of the war to insure that terrorism isn't rewarded with political gains. As for Israel's standing in Europe, there I think we're dealing with psychology more than politics -- specifically, the European need to diminish the U.S. by attacking Israel. Finally, siding with the Arabs helps Europe deal with its double moral burden of colonialism and the Holocaust. By siding with the "anti-colonialist" Arabs, Europeans absolve themselves of their colonialist past. And by turning the Jews into the new Nazis, Europe also implicitly diminishes the uniqueness of the Holocaust. If the Jews do "the same thing," then why should Europe keep feeling guilty for the Holocaust? Europe needs to believe the worst about Israel; I think some Europeans were genuinely disappointed when the Jenin "massacre" turned out to be a farce.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

houston,tx: Life is always very simple,but i think israel is complicating things,i only have one question to all those people who support israel,how would you feel if some army came into this country and maintained a curfew,claiming they were routing out terrorists,would you not fight back with anything you got?why do you blame the palestinians for doin the same?another question is that when israelis bomb the palestinians,it is almost as if it is a legal loss of life,yet when palestinians send one suicide bomb,it is considered terrorism,dont you think it is the israelis who are terrorists? Another question is that whenever a peace proposal is made israelis expect there to be a complete stop to palestinian suicide bombings,yet they still maintain a complete presence in palestinian territories expecting them to stomach this?is this a fair deal?

Yossi Klein Halevi: Life is very simple, Houston, so here's how the Middle East conflict has worked. Every time a serious offer for compromise over territory was suggested -- the British-sponsored Peel Commission in 1937, the UN partition plan in 1947, the Clinton Plan in 2000 -- the Jews said yes, the Arab world said no. After each Arab no, there was an Arab-initiated war that broke out. And that was followed by an Israeli victory and an Arab disaster -- followed, in turn, by Arab rage and self-pity. There would be no refugee problem today if the Arabs had accepted partition in 1947 instead of trying to destroy the Jewish state. There would be no occupation of the West Bank if the Arab world hadn't tried to destroy the JEwish state in 1967 (before Israel controlled the territories or dreamed of settlements). And there would be no Israeli roadblocks and invasion today if Arafat had accepted Clinton's proposal. When it comes down to it, it's one self-inflicted Palestinian disaster after another. Simple.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boca Raton, FL: What is so different about Palestinian society (compared to the 22 Arab States) that provides any hope they will become the first Arab society to adopt "democratic principles" as the U.S. expects from them?

Yossi Klein Halevi: Paradoxically, the very fact that Palestinians lived under Israeli occupation for 30 plus years exposed them to the workings of a democratic society. I know Palestinian journalists who are deeply envious of the freedom I enjoy as an Israeli journalist. But it's not only intellectuals. A Palestinian guy who was working on rennovations in my apartment last year said to me: "If you can stand in the middle of Jerusalem and call Sharon any name you want, why can't I do that to Arafat? Why are you better than me?" Good question. And I think many Palestinians are asking themselves that same question when they see how Israelis live, in a prosperous democracy, and how they've been impoverished in their little police state. Still, I share some of your skepticism. We have a very long way to go.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

New York, NY: Are we getting close in ousting Arafat so that the peace talks can continue. Personally I feel there will never be peace and Israel must do what it has to do to survive and the H-- with world opinion

Yossi Klein Halevi: There's a debate going on now in the government and the army as to whether it's worth it for Israel to oust Arafat at this point. Sharon has brilliantly succeeded in exposing and cornering Arafat. Now it's up to the Palestinians to either rally around the boss or throw him out. This should be their test, it seems to me. As for the prospects for peace, in the short term I don't believe there is a chance. The problem goes far deeper than Arafat. A recent Palestinian-sponsored poll revealed that 51 percent of Palestinians believe that the goal of the current war should be the destruction of Israel. The hopeful news from that poll is that 42 percent are ready to accept a two-state solution. What that polls tells us, then, is that at this point a majority of Palestinians are not ready to live in peace with Israel, but that a substantial minority exists that is, and I base my hopes for the future on them.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Philadelphia, PA: Why not ship all of the Palestinians to Jordan and Syria to be with their Arab brothers? Honestly?

Yossi Klein Halevi: Honestly, do you want to turn Israel into the next Serbia?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mt. Holly, New Jersey: How can any Israeli criticize the use of terrorism when the State of Israel was created using violence and terrorism?

Yossi Klein Halevi: The Zionist movement was divided into different political and military factions. The minority, right-wing faction did indeed employ terrorism (though they usually targeted the British military and when civilians were killed it was usually accidental).
The mainstream center-left military organization, the Hagannah, bitterly opposed terrorism and at one point joined with the British occupiers in hunting down right-wing terrorists. The Hagannah's policy was officially called "restraint." Please show me the Palestinian equivalent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oakland, CA: Do you think Sharon's strategy of targeted killings is an effective tool for promoting peace in the region?

Yossi Klein Halevi: The targeted killings are aimed at those who dispatch young men strapped with explosives (and nails and bolts to maximize the pain) into crowds of civilians. The aim of targeted killings of terrorist masterminds isn't to be an effective tool for promoting peace in the region, but but to keep Israeli citizens from being blown apart.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Portland, Oregon: Do you approve of the fence being built around the West Bank? Do you think it will provide more security to Israeli public?

Yossi Klein Halevi: I'm wary of fences, which communicate weakness and fear, very dangerous in the Middle East. Besides which, many Palestinians, and especially Palestinian citizens of Israel, will still be living on the Israeli side of the fence. It doesn't sound sensible to me, though I understand the desperation behind the move.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Boise, Idaho: Confilcts with Isreal in which Isreal receives the criticizim and eventually the agression of the world is fortold in the Bible. Do you think the christians will preceive the current events to potentially be prophecy comming true?

Yossi Klein Halevi: As we say in the Middle East, God is Great.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Raleigh, NC: If Israel is really serious about peace, couldn't they easily achieve that goal by putting an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands?

Yossi Klein Halevi: Israel initiated the Oslo process (people tend to forget that these days), empowering its arch-enemy Arafat, arming his militias (with the same guns they're now using against us) and lobbying the international community to support the Palestinian-state-in-the-making. Then, at the crucial moment of final negotiations, Israel offers 90 plus percent of the territories (not bad, given the fact that no Palestinian state ever existed) and East Jerusalem -- a previously inconceivable offer. In exchange, we received a two-year terror tantrum.

The peace process was based on the assumption that this is a conflict between two indigenous peoples who each have deep claims over the entire land between the river and the sea, and so the only fair solution is partition. Israel (aside from the hard right) has accepted the moral logic of that; even Sharon today accepts the inevitability of a Palestinian state. On the Palestinian side, though, the official leadership continues to teach Palestinians that all of the land belongs only to them. If you want peace in the Middle East, direct your ire at the rejectionist Palestinian leadership that still doesn't accept the legitimacy of Israel's existence in any territory.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Los Angeles, California: Hello, why hasnt anyone asked the most pertinent questions in this Isreali/Palestine conflict...like why where the jews banished from Isreal to begin with?, and the most important question, what gave the UN the right, in 1947, to give ythe Palestinians land away? and why cant any of the jews see this point of view? Also, why in 1967 did the US decide to start selling arms and weapons to a jewish state, when they stated in 1959 that they would in fact, NOT sell arms , ever, to a jewish state? thank you sir, JG

Yossi Klein Halevi: Thank you for bringing the issue into its proper focus, which is continued Arab refusal to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state in any borders. The UN didn't have the "right" to give away Palestinian land. That land was claimed by two peoples. Each of us has compelling claims. The fact is, that there have always been Jews living in the land of Israel, even after the exile; we remained throughout history an indigenous people. Another unpleasant fact for Palestinians: There was never a sovereign Palestinian state in any part of the land of Israel/Palestine. Ever. In fact that only people that succeeded in creating a sovereign state in that land in the last 3,000 years have been the Jews. You want to keep arguing over history? No problem. We can argue another 100 years, just as we did for the last 100 years. Neither of us will convince the other. The point of the peace process-- in fact the point of partition going back to the UN in 1947 -- was to replace the past with the future, to give us all a new beginning so that we don't destroy each other with our self-righteousness. I'm ready to accept the legitimacy of a Palestinian state in the land of Israel/Palestine. Is the Arab world ready to accept the legitimacy -- not just the existence, but the legitimacy -- of a Jewish state? If you insist that even the 1947 partition was wrong (and that was a far more generous map for Palestine than is the current Palestinian demand of 1967 borders) what hope is there for peace?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mountain View, California: Why don't more Israeli Jews support the concept of "TRANSFER," relocating the Palestinian and Israeli Arabs to other countries? Alternately, why not redesign the Knesset into 2 parts. The lower chamber would include Gentile legislators, but the upper chamber would include ONLY Jews, and only it would legislate on matters of domestic and foreign policy

Yossi Klein Halevi: I'm not interested in Serbia or South Africa.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thousand Oaks, CA: Why does Israel have a bad PR Department? You fight amongst your self and air your dirty laundry to the rest of the world to see.E.H

Yossi Klein Halevi: It's true that when Palestinian spokespeople appear on TV, they all seem interchangeable. When is the last time you heard Hanan Ashwari argue with Saeb Erekat? I believe, though, that in the long term Israel's weakness of divisiveness is also its strength: We are self-confident enough and free enough to argue with each other, even in war-time. It's one of the reasons I'm proud to be an Israeli.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Brooklyn, New York: Why don't you choose a prime minister who wants peace??? Why Israeli's can't understand that as long as there is an ocupation of few milion peaple there will be violance against Israel???

Yossi Klein Halevi: In 1999, we elected a prime minister who wanted peace. His name was Ehud Barak. He put together a government of Labor and the left-wing Meretz, and offered the Palestinians an end to occupation, a sovereign Palestine and part of Jerusalem as their capital. Yaser Arafat's response was suicide bombings and mob lynchings. Arafat didn't declare war against Sharon, who was then head of the opposition, but against the most left-wing government in Israel's history. A government of Yossi Beilin, Yossi Sarid, Shlomo ben-Ami, Shimon Peres -- the men who were ready to offer the Palestinians almost anything for a deal. I thought they understood these things in Brooklyn.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Honolulu, Hawaii: I live in US for many years and I am european. I'm surprised by the anti-Israel european press. I don't understand why. Although antisemitism in Europe is raising I also remember when I was there that there was also a strong support for the jewish condition too. Can you explain me why this european anti-Israel feeling when compared to America?

Yossi Klein Halevi: Europeans often accuse Americans of being simplistic, but it seems to me that there are no more political simpletons in the world today than European leftists. They reduce a 100-year Middle East conflict to "occupation" -- forgetting that the very reason Israel occupied the territories in 1967 is that the Arab world tried to destroy the Jewish state, and it still hasn't made its peace with Israel's existence.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Westboro, MA: How is Shimon Peres viewed by the average Israeli? It is amazing that he has not been stripped of all leadership responsibility. Do many of the citizens of Israel blame Peres for his arrogance in helping to legitimize a career terrorist by bringing him back from exile in 1993?

Yossi Klein Halevi: Peres is seen as a pathetic failure who nevertheless had a noble record of service to Israel until the disastrous Oslo process. Yes, many Israelis certainly do blame him for the worst self-inflicted wound Israel ever subjected itself to.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paris, France: Good day, How come the Israeli diplomatic establishment is more offensive in its reponse to international criticism, especially with Western countries whose own record in similar cases was much worse? I think in particular about France's record in Algeria, Belgium's in Zaire, Holland's in Indonesia.

Yossi Klein Halevi: The anger against Europe's double standard is certainly growing among Israelis. I think Israel's tolerance level for European criticism is very low these days.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bel Air, Maryland: Could Israelis live with a settlement 'imposed' by an international gathering of nations, including the US, and backed up by peacekeeping troops?

Yossi Klein Halevi: In the short term, yes. But what happens after Israel has weakened itself territorially and then American troops are pulled out, as eventually they must be? Israel's policy has always been to insist on defending itself. I'm not sure Israelis would be prepared to give up that sense of self-control over their destiny, especially in a region as unstable as the Middle East.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mt. View , calif:: What can we as americans do to help stop this stupidity?

Yossi Klein Halevi: Bush has the right idea: no free ride for terrorism. America has tried very hard to reach a sensible compromise, and Israel was ready to go along. Now the onus is on those who rejected America's offer for sovereignty and chose instead a terrorist war.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

east hampton NY: When will Israel deal with the serious threat on the northern border?

Yossi Klein Halevi: Israel is trying to prevent its conflict with the Palestinians from widening into a regional conflict, which is precisely the goal of Hizbollah. So long as Hizbollah's shelling into Israel from Lebanon remains sporadic, and most of all so long as there are no heavy casualties, the policy of restraint continues. One stray shell from Hizbollah that goes wrong and we will find ourselves in a new Middle East.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

san diego california: When Isarael became a state, why didn't Palestine become a state? Can Palestinians be educated to not kill by being forced to learn other subjects such as science, literature, math etc. Today it is too difficult to create a Palestinian State. Why Cann't the Palestinians live under a Jewish State with a democratic government. Everyone in the United States live under a Christian State (Christian Holidays) with a Democratic Government.

Yossi Klein Halevi: Palestinians and Jews have too much mutual rage to want to live together. And each side has national aspirations that somehow need to be accommodated. The question is, when will the Palestinians accept the fact that no solution will meet all their demands, and that Israel is here to stay?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Houston, TX: If the decision taken by the Israeli government was adopted by Austrian government the jews all over the world will call to denounce it as a racist and antisemite. Since the arabs are semite do you agree that Israeli government is a racist and antisemite?

Yossi Klein Halevi: Israel is a democratic country that debates everything, and the recent proposal that state land should be sold only to Jews has, justifiably, raised a huge outcry here, and that proposal will almost certainly not pass. As for the motive behind the proposal -- which I oppose -- it isn't seen by its promoters as racist but as an act of self-defense, to prevent the Arab world from buying up Israeli territory. Given the fact that we're in a war over territory, that is not an unreasonable fear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kansas City, MO: Why don't you remind people just how happy the Palestinians were after Sept. 11. Weren't they (and the rest of the Arab world) jumping for joy when they learned of the attacks?

Yossi Klein Halevi: Thanks for the necessary reminder.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

cleveland, ohio: How can u.s. citizens help the israeli's? I feel completely helpless! Liora Reznichenko

Yossi Klein Halevi: Thanks for the question. You can help first of all by supporting any of the organizations that help the families of terror victims. There is also a buy Israel campaign underway to help the faltering Israeli economy. Most of all, you can help by continuing to be the best friends Israel or any other country ever had.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tuscaloosa, ALA: Do Israeli citizens feel abandoned by their leadership, which continues to fight the war imposed by PLOHAMASISLAMICJIHADFATAHIRANALQAEDAHEZBOLLAH (the alphabet terrorists) with one hand tied behind its back?

Yossi Klein Halevi: Sharon is wildly popular -- up to 70 percent according to some polls. Most people realize he's doing the best he can, trying to maintain the unity government, which is essential for Israel's ability to effectively fight as one nation, and at the same time hit back strongly at the terrorists. I think he's doing a terrific job under impossible circumstances.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pittsburgh Pennsylvania: Why is it, in your opinion, does the the rest of the world seem to be intimidated by Islamic countries? I can't believe how many nations condone the actions of terrorists. ps........I'm not Jewish,..but a realist.

Yossi Klein Halevi: There's a readiness to go to any extreme that's coming through a part of the Islamic world that terrifies rational people. Also, I think that many people who speak about terrorism as resulting from Palestinian frustration and Israeli occupation tend to forget two essential points: one, that Israel offered to end the occupation two years ago and was met by a terrorist war, and two, that suicide bombers are the products of a religious education of hatred. There are lots of frustrated and angry peoples in the world; only the Palestinians have produced suicide bombers. The answer isn't in the Israeli roadblocks but in the Palestinian mosques.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jackson, MS: Since Jews, which make up such a small proportion of the world population, have made a disproportionately mega contribution to human civilization in so many disciplines/fields, do you believe the current hatred displayed toward Israel, (even after the Holocaust!) is based in human jealousy or is it larger than that and based in the spirit(supernatural) realm?

Yossi Klein Halevi: I find the renewal of Jew-hatred around the world -- especially, as you note, after the Holocaust -- inconceivable. I don't think it's based, this time around, on jealousy. Partly it's based on hatred of America, with which Jews are so strongly identified (especially in the Muslim world). Partly it's based on a false anti-colonialism, which ignores the fact that the Jews are an indigenous people returning home, and not Crusaders. And finally, I think there must be something intangible, call it supernatural, that I don't understand and am afraid to touch.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leuven, Belgium: Yossi -What about Nethanyahu ? Is he going to be the next prime minister and will he again prove to be the true leader or are people after 11 of sep. really waiting on Godot ?

Yossi Klein Halevi: Good question. For my part, I'd rather see Sharon in power for the forseeable future. Unlike Netanyahu, who is a divisive leader, Sharon knows how to unite Israel. And we need unity now above all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Harrisburg, PA: Many Christians believe that the increasingly tense situation in Israel is fulfillment of Biblical prophecy that the end times are very near. What are your thoughts on this and do the Jewish people still look for the coming of Messiah? Thank you.

Yossi Klein Halevi: I'm a religious Jew, and I believe in the ultimate redemption of humanity. So do many Israeli Jews. Some believe this is the messianic time, others are more cautious. I tend to the cautious side, especially in messianic matters, which tend to rouse dangerous apocalyptic fantasies. I agree that the times look pretty apocalyptic. But I leave these mysteries to God. My job as a religious person is to live the best possible spiritual life I can in these crazy times. And as a citizen of Israel and a resident of Jerusalem, I feel a special responsibility to hold on to religious sanity. If I meet a true prophet someday (and I don't mean that cynically) I may have to reassess. Until then, I'll try to stay as rational as possible, despite the fact that I live at the epicenter of insanity.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

San Jose, CA: What in your opinion has Israel done wrong in this conflict over the last 50 years? What could Israel have done better to achieve peace?

Yossi Klein Halevi: There's much that Israel has done wrong. We ignored the Palestinians in the territories and related to them primarily as cheap labor. We made precious little effort to better their lives (although their standard of living rose tremendously under Israeli occupation,and has now plummeted under Arafat). We failed to understand the Arab world's trauma from its own colonialist past, just as the Arab world failed to understand our historical traumas. I wish we would have done better. What consoles me somewhat is that in the last decade we did try to make amends: We were ready to create a Palestinian state and even to become the first country in history ready to share sovereignty over its capital city. That gives me the sense, in these terrible times, that Israel is in the right. But, along with the Arab world, we certainly have our share of blame in helping to create the conflict.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

: How do Israelis live, under constant threat of life & limb? Also, i recently saw a cnn special of the recent seige @ the church of the nativity. It seemed that Israelis & Palestinians were, at the least,civil to each other when need be. What is the mood between the common citizens of each nationality?

Yossi Klein Halevi: We live very strange lives these days. When it's relatively quiet -- that is, when the army takes the offensive against terrorists -- we feign normalcy and return to some kind of routine, even daring to go downtown and sit in a cafe. But then when we get hit again, we withdraw back into our private refuges.

There still are pockets of Palestinian-Israeli interaction, or at least coexistence. Some parks in Jerusalem where Palestinians and Israelis frequent. But it's getting increasingly rarer. The fear and rage on both sides is creating an abyss between us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Augusta, GA: How are the schools/children operating/coping during this time.

Yossi Klein Halevi: During the summer vacation, there are many camps that have stopped functioning because of security fears. Those that are running are all protected by armed guards. We think of it as normal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

St. Paul, Minnesota: As a supporter of Amnesty International, I have become increasingly disappointed at their posture towards Israel. Do you feel the same? How long has this been going on? Why?

Yossi Klein Halevi: Amnesty recently released a statement that, for the first time, labeled suicide bombings a crime against humanity. On the one hand -- what took you so long to figure that one out? On the other hand -- better late than never.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oakland, CA: Why do you think the Christian Right in the United States has recently shown so much solidarity with the state of Israel?

Yossi Klein Halevi: I recently asked that same question to a rabbi who is active in promoting Evangelical-Jewish relations. His answer surprised me. Evangelicals aren't "using" Israel to promote a messianic/apocalyptic agenda, as many Jews fear. They are supporting Israel simply because in Genesis, God tells Abraham that He will bless those who bless his children, and curse those who curse his children. So Evangelicals believe that blessing the Jewish people -- especially after the long history of Christian anti-Semitism -- is a good idea.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Oakland, CA: What do you think of the settlement movement in the occupied territories? Do you think the Palestinians have a legitimate right to protest these activities?

Yossi Klein Halevi: Settlements take up a total of 1.5 percent of the West Bank. That's it. The settlements issue was nearly solved at the Camp David talks -- Israel offered to uproot settlements in outlying areas and concentrate the rest in small settlement blocs. The issues that made a deal impossible were over Jerusalem, the Temple Mount and the refugees. Not the settlements. I think it's a pretext that the Palestinians use. More than that, the settlements are a self-inflicted Palestinian wound: Israel took control of the West Bank in 1967, but not until 1977 did the settlement movement really begin in earnest. Israel waited for 10 years for an Arab partner to discuss the fate of the territories before voting in a right-wing government committed to settlement. One more Palestinian self-inflicted wound.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

arcadia, ca: What can individuals in the United States and elsewhere do to aide and show support for Israel in its war against terrorism?

Yossi Klein Halevi: Write letters to the editor, participate in call-in shows, talk to community and church groups, become knowledgeable about the issues, join the growing campaign to buy Israeli products. And, if you're a praying person, pray for us.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cincinnati, Ohio: How do you raise your children with hope and an eye toward the future under your current circumstances?

Yossi Klein Halevi: That's a devastating question. My wife and I believe very strongly in Arab-Jewish coexistence; without it there is no future for us here in the Middle East. But in Jerusalem, at least for now, it's almost impossible to cross that abyss. For us, as for most Israelis, this is a period to get through, endure. No one is thinking about the future; it's too terrifying to think beyond this moment.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Freiburg, Baden, Germany: When all arguments are boiled down, isn't the real issue about control of East Jerusalem? I do not forsee any diplomatic way to solve this. Control of the "temple mount" must be by one side or the other, and neither side is willing to let the other side have long-term, perpetual, control. Is East Jerusalem Israeli or Palestinian?

Yossi Klein Halevi: The issue isn't East Jerusalem, or at least it wasn't. Ehud Barak offered Arafat control over all East Jerusalem Arab neighborhoods. The issue broke down over the Temple Mount. Barak suggested Arab control over the mount itself, and Israeli control over the area below the mount that is part of the Western Wall complex. Arafat said no and proceded to deny that there had ever been a Jewish temple on the mount and that Jews have any connection to the area.

If it were possible to share Jerusalem with a peaceful, democratic Palestinian state, most Israelis would accept the arrangement. So would I. But for now, "sharing" Jerusalem with Arafat's authority means bringing into this city Hamas, Fatah, Tanzim and all the other murderous militias.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jackson, MS: Have you ever wondered why no other people on earth have been through so much as Israel. When you consider the recorded history of such an insignificant people as Israel, it is amazing that you exist. But that is not enough, the world is still trying to exterminate you. I love Israel and it is awful that you still have such a battle to fight just to allow your children to have an opportunity to exist. The way I see it, only God, not the US (which I love), will insure that you continue to not only to exist, but to thrive in spite of unreasonable, angry nations surrounding you. Do you agree or not?

Yossi Klein Halevi: I believe in God, and in His protection of Israel. I see it as a miracle that the Jewish people rose from the dead after the Holocaust and went on to become stronger and more vigorous than ever before in our history. But I don't at all dismiss America's friendship and support. It seems to me that America is God's instrument here for protecting Israel. But I'm supposed to be a journalist, not a theologian.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Germany: Hello,

as far I paid attention to the Middle East conflict, I see a front "Isrealis" and a front "Palestinians". Both do their very best to make the world shown, how bad and brutal the other side is. What makes it easier for people to blame another persons and pay no thought to his own behavior. It is said, Israel offered the Palestinians land for freedom. So What?? I point my weapon onto you and tell you, take or leave it. Wasn't it this, how it went--land for freedom??

For me, the first step must be taken by the Israelis to halt their settlements withdraw the people form the land, they do not own.

So the suicide bombing stops, do the settlements it as well?

What I would call "courage", Sir, I would say tell Israel to stop its violance against the other side and order the Arafat to everything to halt the suicide bombers.
What can a man do, if you broke his arms and legs and you are now telling him he now should do his task as before. With what should Arafat and the authority stop the terror, with prayers?? Rember, Israel has not left anything--offices--stant. So please tell me how a broken man should act??

Yossi Klein Halevi: You start off by talking about "both sides" but your your righteous indignation is clearly reserved for only one side -- the Jews. So let's talk about that; let's at least be honest about where you're at. You want to place all the onus on Israel, presumably because we're the stronger party and the Palestinians are the weaker party. But Israelis look at the map of the Middle East and see 22 nations arrayed against them. So we feel the need to tread carefully in one of the most brutal regions in the world.

You blame Israel for not taking the initiative in ending the conflict. Consider this: For the last 55 years, every time the international community comes up with an offer to end the conflict, the Jews said yes, the Palestinians and the Arab world said no and the result was Palestinian disaster. People like you, I'm afraid, encourage Palestinian intransigence and self-pity by never forcing them to become responsible for their fate.

Classic case in point is how you in Europe continue to absolve Arafat of any responsibility. Poor man: Israel has smashed his offices, left him powerless, so how do we expect him to control terrorism? You conveniently forget some unpleasant facts. Like the fact that it was Israel that saved Arafat from oblivion after the Gulf War and brought him back to the territories. Or the fact that, from day one of the Oslo process, Arafat has been preaching violence and terrorism, teaching Palestinian children to revere suicide bombers (going back to 1996!) -- with no protest at all from Europe. Or the fact that he has been implicated in not just morally encouraging terrorism for the last five years at least but funding terrorism in the last two years (with generous European donations?

So spare me the pity you feel for Arafat. Many of us here feel deep pity for the plight of Palestinians, victims of a criminal Palesitnian regime that encourages parents to send children to blow themselves up in monstrous crimes.

Are you capable of feeling any pity for Arafat's thousands of Jewish victims -- the nearly 600 people killed by terrorism in the last two years, the 5,000 plus wounded, the thousands of families shattered?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Comment from Yossi Klein Halevi: That's it. Thanks for the questions and the stimulation.
Yossi

? Copyright 2004 USA TODAY, a division of Gannett Co. Inc.

Terrorism in all forms needs to be collectively abhored by all of us in our homes, our communities, and our politics. We also need to ensure that we do not fight terror with terror.

Furthermore I believe feeding and caring for a human gets a lot farther in that regard than killing their offspring. It's also more cost effective. That's why it's ok with me that gas is a nickel in Iraq. Even if it saves one us service person because of the kindness shown it's worth my tax dollars going to subsidize their economy. I hope the same programs are going on to make sure that everyone regardless of their position is fed, clothed and sheltered. Loving your enemies, the true form of the Golden Rule and Kants willing of things universal, they all point to the way to dramatically influence human behavior and stop the hate-trading.

While he was mad he at least was a savvy political person who did a lot of good for Germany prior to going off the rails and invading as much of Europe that he could.

Even his Air-force commanders when told that they could have anything that they wanted to fight the British requested Spitfires.

But Hitler was one of those of the "Master Race" types who thought that where "Born to Rule" and he for one certainly did not approve of the Arab race which if he had of been successful would have wiped out just as he attempted to destroy the Jews. So you had better get your facts straight before you make a bigger fool of yourself than you already have.

And even though Hitler was a fool most of his Solders in the field were not and they had integrity Rommel comes to mind right now as he was one of the most respected Generals in all of WW11 by any side and he for one never followed Hitlers orders in Racal Genocide.

Col

.
However, in my opinion it has shifted farther to the left, at least in the domestic entitlement sense. It used to be that Democrats were in favor of big government, while Republicans were in favor of small government. Now, it's the Republicans who seem to be in favor of big government, while the Democrats favor even BIGGER AND BIGGER government. And the Goldwater/Reagan Republicans all left their political onions at home.

I just don't understand how a person's core values and principles, which really don't change over a lifetime, which led him to support a Republican at one time, could now support a Democrat.

Core values and principles (at least in part, and in the political sense):

Do you believe in a person, basically, taking personal responsibility? Yes is closer to the Republican position; no is closer to the Democrat position.

Do you believe that it is inherently alright for the government to seize the personal property (money) from the person who earned it, just to give it to a person who didn't earn it. Yes would be the Democrat position; no would be the Republican position. (Note: Not even the Republicans would say no anymore, or so it seems. But at least with them, it might be taking a bit less.)

Do you believe that life begins at conception? Yes is a Republican position; no is a Democrat position.

Do you believe in a large central (federal) government, or more local and/or state control? The former is a Democrat position; the latter is a Republican position.

Do you believe that parents are entitled to school choice for their children? Yes - Republican. No - Democrat.

Do you believe in government interference in one's personal life? Yes - Democrat. No - Republican (Same note as above.)

Do you believe in a more collectivist society or a more individualism society? Collectivist - Democrat. Individualism - Republican.

Do you believe in freedom of religion or freedom from religion. Former - Republican. Latter - Democrat

I could go on, but I'm sure you get the idea.

Hey, I admit it. The Republican party sucks pond water. But the Democrat party sucks even more pond water. Too bad the Libertarian party (or Conservatarian) isn't stronger.

Not only that, but the word disingenuous comes to mind to describe the Democrats. On one hand they scream bloody murder because nothing was done to prevent 9-11. On the other hand, they scream bloody murder when steps are taken in an attempt to prevent another 9-11. (I could go on and on with examples, but I won't bother.)

I suppose a person could change on some of these (or others), but I sure don't understand how. Because, the obvious question would be, were you fooling yourself then, or are you fooling yourself now?

.
You probably won't ever go back the that long past discussion (nor will I) when I put on my creative writing hat early one Sunday morning (over coffee) and started to write a short story about an incident involving unknown aircraft approaching the USA and a couple of Air National Guard fighter jets that were scrambled to identify them. You mentioned, at that time, that you'd like to read the rest of the story.

Well, I never did finish the story, nor am I ever likely to, but it was based on several real life incidents (when I was in the Air Force, actually) when that kind of thing was more common than the public was privy to. The unknown aircraft, had I finished the story, would have turned out to be Russian aircraft, possibly transport type aircraft, on their way to Cuba. The Russians liked to test our response time by drifting off course, barely crossing into our air space. From time to time, some Cuban fighters would fly low over the ocean to go out and meet them, and escort them into Cuba.

Moreover, from time to time, it would be a Russian Bomber (a Russian Bear, as they were called) that was flying into Cuba, and that would really set off some alarms when the interceptor pilot reported one. (Yep, they really did.) Whether my story would have identified them as transport aircraft or bombers, I don't really know. I would have just let it flow into whatever.

The story would have concluded with the Air National guard pilot looking into the eyes of his Cuban and Russian counterparts in an attempt to prevent them from entering our air space. And the Cubans would have been flying more modern MIGs, while the ANG pilots were in the rather antiquated F102s, outmatched and outgunned, to say the least.

The moral of that story was that the pilots of the Air National Guard, especially at a time when most active duty pilots were stationed in Vietnam, were the USA's first line of defense against a possible attack. And the prospects of such an attack were taken quite seriously in the late 60s and early 70s. And the Air Force and Air National Guard personnel on duty took their responsibilities quite seriously.

So there ya' go, I'll not finish the story, but now you know where it was going.

so you say :

"The best way to fight terrorism is to work diligently against the conditions that make people desperate"

What conditions make people desperate ? Are you talking about poverty or the "interference" of the US (or Britain or France in the past) in the Arab region ? Or something else ?
What do the arabs want ? The civilized countries to give them money, bulit them highways, skyscrapers and than just leave everything there ? And eventualy come back in 10 years to fix them and build others ? I think the western countries are doing a lot of this anyway, at least when it comes to provide food and medication in the poor countries. There are billions of dollars flowing that way.

Why do the terroist fight ? Do you think a complete US (and US interests) withdrawal from the region would solve the problem ?